Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-updateProjectStatus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as an 'update' (mutation), but does not disclose what happens to existing data, whether updates are partial or full overwrites, or any permissions/requirements. This is thin for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is concise and to the point, but its brevity comes at the cost of substance, which is reflected in other dimensions. Still, for structure and conciseness alone, it earns a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the update behavior, how milestones are structured, or what the response contains. A mutation tool like this needs at least a note about overwriting semantics or return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter details and actually underrepresents the schema by only mentioning 'status and milestones' while omitting notes, techStack, and description. It neither compensates nor contradicts, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a clear verb ('Update') with a specific resource ('project status and milestones'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like createProject, deleteProject, and listProjects. However, it omits other updatable fields (notes, techStack, description) from the schema, making it slightly narrower than the actual capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., project existence), nor does it contrast with createProject or deleteProject. The only implied usage comes from the tool's name, but the description itself offers no context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.